Noometry

Model comparison

Gemma 2 27B vs Mercury 2

Mercury 2 is the stronger model overall, scoring 39.1 to 29.4 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 11 shared benchmarks.

Gemma 2 27B Google

29.4

Rank #312 Confirmed

Mercury 2 Inception

39.1

Rank #175 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 11 benchmarks with published results for both. Gemma 2 27B scores higher in 1 category and Mercury 2 in 6 categories; 6 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in knowledge, where Mercury 2 leads 36.2 to 19.0.
  • Mercury 2 is cheaper at $0.25 / $0.75 per million input/output tokens, against $0.65 / $0.65 for Gemma 2 27B.
  • Mercury 2 accepts more context: 128K tokens versus 8K.
  • Gemma 2 27B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Gemma 2 27BMercury 2
ProviderGoogleInception
Noometry Index29.439.1
Released2024-06-242026-02-20
WeightsOpenProprietary
Context window8K128K
Max output2K50K
Input $ / M tokens$0.65$0.25
Output $ / M tokens$0.65$0.75
Results tracked3417

Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry

Category by category

Coding Too close to call

Gemma 2 27B: 34.1 (#246), Mercury 2: 33.5 (#255)

BenchmarkGemma 2 27BMercury 2
LMArena Coding12111391
LMArena WebDev—1171
SciCode—38.7%
WeirdML—43.2%
BigCodeBench Instruct42.8%—
LiveBench Coding36%—
BigCodeBench Complete52.5%—
ALE-Bench—785.58

Reasoning Mercury 2 leads

Gemma 2 27B: 15.3 (#315), Mercury 2: 23.8 (#170)

BenchmarkGemma 2 27BMercury 2
LMArena Hard Prompts11981362
CritPt—0.8%
LiveBench Reasoning28.1%—
DTBench48%—
LiveBench Data Analysis47.9%—
LMCA7.1%—
Epoch Capabilities Index122.08—
LiveBench38.2%—

Math Not comparable

Gemma 2 27B: 10.7 (#311), Mercury 2: —

BenchmarkGemma 2 27BMercury 2
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-20251.4%—
LiveBench Math26.5%—
LMArena Math1212—
MATH Level 527.9%—

Knowledge Mercury 2 leads

Gemma 2 27B: 19.0 (#280), Mercury 2: 36.2 (#172)

BenchmarkGemma 2 27BMercury 2
LMArena Expert11721358
GPQA Diamond36.5%—
Confabulations27.1%—
Vectara Hallucination Rate—12.3%
MMLU75.7%—

Multilingual Mercury 2 leads

Gemma 2 27B: 38.6 (#226), Mercury 2: 46.6 (#157)

BenchmarkGemma 2 27BMercury 2
LMArena Non-English12171331
LMArena Chinese12211417
LMArena Russian12341304
LMArena French1247—
LMArena German1209—
LMArena Japanese1175—
LMArena Korean1174—
LMArena Spanish1228—

Instruction Following Mercury 2 leads

Gemma 2 27B: 60.5 (#249), Mercury 2: 70.2 (#165)

BenchmarkGemma 2 27BMercury 2
LMArena Instruction Following12061329
LiveBench Instruction Following58.1%—

Long Context Mercury 2 leads

Gemma 2 27B: 37.3 (#218), Mercury 2: 40.5 (#154)

BenchmarkGemma 2 27BMercury 2
LMArena Longer Query12311330

Writing & Preference Mercury 2 leads

Gemma 2 27B: 44.2 (#225), Mercury 2: 53.8 (#155)

BenchmarkGemma 2 27BMercury 2
LMArena Text12311355
LMArena Creative Writing12411289
LMArena Multi-Turn12241358
LiveBench Language32.6%—

Frequently asked questions

Is Gemma 2 27B better than Mercury 2?

Mercury 2 is the stronger model overall, scoring 39.1 to 29.4 on the Noometry Index.

Which is cheaper, Gemma 2 27B or Mercury 2?

Mercury 2 is cheaper. It lists at $0.25 per million input tokens and $0.75 per million output tokens; Gemma 2 27B lists at $0.65 and $0.65.

Is Gemma 2 27B or Mercury 2 better for coding?

They score almost the same on coding (34.1 vs 33.5); test both on your own repository before choosing.

Which has the bigger context window?

Mercury 2 does, with 128K tokens against 8K.

How many benchmarks do Gemma 2 27B and Mercury 2 share?

11 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemma 2 27B has 34 scored results on Noometry and Mercury 2 has 17.

Related comparisons

Go deeper